GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language... But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

from the no-freedom-to-get-off dept

We've discussed the push to get both major political parties in the US to adopt language around internet freedom in their official platforms. With the RNC Convention happening, there's been some news that they are, in fact, putting in some internet freedom language, but the specifics do matter. The Daily Caller report indicated that the language was based on the manifesto that Ron Paul and Rand Paul released a few weeks ago, which had serious problems (such as arguing that the public domain was a "collectivist plot" and that the end-to-end principles of the internet were also some sort of awful conspiracy). One would hope that cooler heads would prevail.

Of course, at the same time, there are numerous reports saying that the same GOP platform will include significant anti-porn language. The GOP has had anti-child porn language before, which makes sense, but they're expanding it to porn in general. And it's being cheered on by various groups who seem... a little excessively happy about this (you should see some of the press releases I've been getting from groups in favor of this). They argue that porn, in general, is "a major, major problem." And Mitt Romney seems to support this, arguing that "every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography."

No matter what you think of pornography, it's hard to square the idea of supporting internet freedom (or freedom of speech in general) with mandatory filters. Porn filters already exist and are widely available in the market. For those who wish to put them on their computers, it's not like they have a lack of options. To make them mandatory seems highly questionable, and it's difficult to see how one can argue for both internet freedom and mandatory filters at the same time.

Of course, this is politics that we're talking about, where it's pretty common to hold two completely conflicting viewpoints at the same time. I expect we'll see similar contradictions in a couple weeks when the Democrats hold their convention as well...

Of course, this is politics that we're talking about, where it's pretty common to hold two completely conflicting viewpoints at the same time.

Ahhh, good old doublethink. When will these idiots realize that it's porn that drove home video adoption, it was porn that funded the early days of the internet, and it's porn that keeps their loveless marriages intact!

They can have my porn...

Re: They can have my porn...

Exactly. Why is further hiding porn such a big deal to them? Is there really an issue needing more filtering? Kids find it gross, so they're not looking for it. If they're under 18 and looking for it, you're not going to be able to stop the more computer literate person any more than the "click here if you are 18" button does.

I really think they just like TALKING about porn all the time. They really have a problem with it being on their mind all the time, and they likely just need to shutup & nutup and get help.

Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off

The "Republican" party aren't conservatives. They're regressives. They want to take us to the 1950s with their budget plan and a push for a tax on the poorest. Their push for voter suppression is horrendous. This is what or politics has come to. It's sad. You can't even hear about technology issues on tv because the social issues have taken over.

And just that look is a view of the world that doesn't square with a party interested in the Constitution and the 21st century. We have an American Taliban that wants to implement their own Sharia law through the use of ad homs and rhetoric akin to the BS we see in the copyright wars.

Expect to see a massive shift in politics soon. But let's hope that we can leave the current Republican Party back to the 18th century.

Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off

We'll never get the Republican party back until they dump the religious party. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time when they co-opted it for the 1980 election, but its influence has grown like a cancer and one day, trust me, it will kill the host. It's practically strangled it already.

And let's get one thing straight. The religious party is not against abortion, or contraception, or gay marriage. The religious party is against SEX - the political issues are just the expression of that position. Unfortunately it's not a good platform to campaign on, because sex is still quite popular with most of the electorate.

Re: Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off

The religious party is not against abortion, or contraception, or gay marriage. The religious party is against SEX - the political issues are just the expression of that position.

That's been my take on it. The hot buttons all revolve around sex.

I respect someone who values all life and believes abortions are wrong. However, if you have that belief system, I would assume you would also be against the death penalty and war. And one would hope you would also be against any environmental hazards which might damage unborn children.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off

I'm "pro-life" until it's popped out at which point the mooching unproductive little parasite better be able to look after it's self! I got what I got with not help from any one else (except the endless help I got from every one else in any number of ways I will pretend didn't happen or don't count) so why should that little baby get a free ride on my hard work? I got it in to this life alive and if it's too stupid to be rich it's it own fault.

Excuse me while I go throw up. Even jokingly faking such levels of cognitive dissonance has given me a hell of a head ache.

Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off

You'd just love them in the 18th century. They would have been called "Whigs" (acutally, "Radical Whigs", because they stood against monarchy and for the american revolution), because the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist party, mainly in opposition to the southern Democratic Party.

Morality

Welcome to the infusion of morality and religion into public policy. Personally, I can't think of anything stupider than injecting the superstitions of the minority into the public policy of the whole....

Re: Morality

Not to mention that it's a hypocritical infusion because all the good moral "Christian" politicians would be up in arms and spewing hate speech if anyone suggested that we have Muslim influence in American laws.

Re: Re: Re: Morality

I'm an atheist, but not the kind that thinks that religion should be wiped from the face of the planet. If someone thinks that porn is bad, or that unleavened bread can become human flesh because someone sings to it, or that it's unlucky to break a mirror, I don't care-- not even a little bit. It's when they take the general religious message of "Hey, guys, don't be a dick." and turn it into some judgmental, violent, hateful bullshit that compels them to try and tell me what to do with my life that I start to become a tiny bit anti-religion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

"I'm an atheist, but not the kind that thinks that religion should be wiped from the face of the planet."

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, although I suggest that out of a proponderance of love for your fellow man you rethink this platform. If you believe, as I do, that religion in history has had a net negative effect on mankind when considering all things (wars, divisiveness, control, retardation of science and society), then there is no reason to believe that such a net negative effect won't continue as long as religion exists on our planet.

So, while I would never call for a mandated ban on religion, arguing for its removal voluntarily is a platform I wholeheartedly endorse....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

I got to the part of your link where the Rabbi proclaimed that "3000 people died in the Inquisition" and stopped. I've heard that revisionist take on the historical record before, in debates and in text, and it never ceases to make me laugh....

It's almost as good as when people claim Hitler was a secularist and not murdering Jews in the name of God, despite the exact text to the contrary in Mein Kampf....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Personally, I view religion much as I do guns. Some people can use it to make the world better, some people use it to make themselves feel safe, and some people use it to exert control over people, and some people use it to kill people.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Well, we're blurring analogies, at this point. We've already established that I'm an atheist. I'm just saying that you're placing blame on a *thing*. The blame is always on the person using the thing. Always.

A corollary, I suppose, is that simply ridding the world of the tool won't stop the underlying behavior. Good people will be good; responsible people will be responsible; power hungry people will strive to control people; and hateful people will find excuses to kill. This is the point that John Doe was making, I think.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

I find that to be a tremendous copout of an answer, particularly in that the tool of religion isn't wielded equally by the congregation and the supposed moral authorities. A gun does not require subservience, religion does. It is enslavement either to an institution or a misguided belief. Either way, you need to find a better analogy than guns....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Well, both guns and religion were invented by Man, and both have a wide range of uses, depending on what type and for what use it's used.

I also used a 'gun' because it's another thing that people often blame for the actions of its user. Though, depending on what old movie you watch, it's conceivable that people might worship, say, a bomb. ;-)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Agreed, DH. A gun or any other tool does not itself ask anything of the wielder. I can pick up a gun and shoot somebody with it, thus killing them. I am at fault there, I did not do it in the name of the gun, I did not do it due to a belief in something the gun represents, the gun was merely a tool to be used.

Religion on the other hand when used as a tool demands something of the wielder. It demands subservience to whatever ideas it holds dear. It preaches its ideas as divinely mandated, even when clear evidence is abundant showing it is false.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

I think it's pretty obvious that you don't have to actually believe a religion to use it.

Although I have absolutely zero data to back it up, I feel like the people who *actually* believe in their religion aren't the people we should worry about. The people who don't really believe, but instead use it as a convenient means to achieve their goals. (Killing infidels, outlawing porn, reason to hate some type of human, etc)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

I am a Christian and I feel exactly as you do. Christianity doesn't teach much of what it has been used for. But it is lazy followers who allow this to happen. They prefer to have someone tell them what to believe then actually study the bible for themselves.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Don't get me wrong, belief in something without any facts or data to back it up is very dangerous, and ripe for misuse, and I encourage any religious people who ask to really consider the implications of their belief.

For instance, if a man came up to you, John Doe, dressed in rags and said that he spoke to God, would you believe him? If he then commanded, say, that you take your newborn and kill him, would you obey?

Probably not. Why? Your religion has shown that God can and does do/ask these things. Also, you have exactly as much proof that God *didn't* tell the man to command you to murder your son as you do that he *did* tell him. It's because we're all born rational creatures, and deep down you know that God (or any god) doesn't exist.

I defend and respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I urge you to trust the world around you and not the one that someone told someone else, who told someone else, who wrote down, who then translated, and translated again says exists.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

You, like most non-Christians, believe that you have all the answers and that you "know" for a "fact" they are true. But what you believe, just like you say what I believe, was told to you by others. Science has very few facts and a whole lot of theories. You, though, take much of those theories as facts because that is what you are taught. So please look in a mirror before giving advice and I mean this sincerely. Examine what you believe as much as you recommend that I do the same.

I can't help but notice that you completely ignored my question. Never fear, I'll treat you as I want to be treated, and address your points!

It's true that science holds many theories, and only a handful of "laws". However, in science, new data creates new theories, and discards old, outdated ones. Religion, in contrast, cannot adapt. (Though, a strong argument can be made that between the old and new testament, the attempt to adapt was made.)

In a more practical example: I'm not saying that there is no supreme creator of the universe, I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't support that theory. I assure you, were real proof shown to the contrary, I'd change that theory, or discard it.

You are correct that religion, at least Christianity, cannot adapt. Why would it? God does not change his mind. You are correct that science does adapt. When evolution cannot be proven in the fossil record, new theories are created to explain this. Namely the lack of a missing link is proof of evolution because evolution apparently runs in spurts. So the lack of evidence is evidence? Faith in science is still faith.

If the existence of God could be truly disproven, then I would change my mind. But it can't or at least it hasn't happened yet.

In one book in your bible, the tenant of "eye for an eye" is given. In another book, the tenant of "turn the other cheek" is given. Same god, yes? So, he must have changed his mind, yes? Odd, that.

Science is about finding the *best* answer with the data available. What is a more likely scenario: That evolution happens in spurts; or that an all powerful, all knowing being created everything in 7 days?

You *know* the right answer, even though you'll likely type out the wrong one.

I will point to a million senseless deaths; to the holocaust, to cancer, to rape and child abuse and say that this is sufficient data to conclude that your benevolent god is a lie. I will point to the concept original sin and of hell, and conclude that your forgiving god is a lie. (Also, you can't prove something doesn't exist-- you, saying he exists, have the burden of proof. It's science.)

Is your mind changed, or are you going to make something up so you can stick to the concept you want to stick to?

Oh, you still haven't answered my question about a man who says he spoke to God.

"Evolution is full of wholes and is still only a theory. Yet you and most others preach it as fact."

Sigh....really? Again, an actual understanding of how theories and laws in science work will alleviate you of this nonsense. Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific world, including a great swath of Christian scientists, I might add. Or perhaps you haven't heard the intelligent design tautology making the rounds?

Can you disprove the existence of a purple unicorn that turns human feces into ice cream? Do you believe in the existence of a purple unicorn that turns human feces into ice cream? Your reasons for saying no to both the first and second questions are the reasons why I do not believe in your God.

Of course not, because he doesn't exist. The people who claim to interpret his wishes sure as hell change their minds an awful lot, though.

I remember when Purgatory was the truth...then it vanished. I remember when Pope's were infallible...then they weren't after a bunch of them were found to be crooks and fascists. Hell, the entire concept of Christ coming down and wiping out the rules of the Old Testament is a giant change of mind.

Seriously, do you even KNOW your own religion, or do you need someone who has studied it enough to know how ridiculous it is written to teach it to you?

"You, like most non-Christians, believe that you have all the answers and that you "know" for a "fact" they are true."

This is exactly incorrect, although it is a common misconception of the non-theist. What we believe is that we do NOT know, but we also do not follow thought for which there is no evidence. It is in fact the religious that claim to "know", when in reality their beliefs amount to mere tautology in logical debate.

There is no evidence for God. There is no evidence that there is not God. The thing is, there is no evidence that invisible phantoms don't hide my car keys in the morning, and there is no evidence that they do. But guess which one we believe?

Because while a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack, it does mean there's no logical reason for belief....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Are you contending that religion has NOT been responsible for the negatives I mentioned on a scale far beyond the secular?

I am contending exactly that. I notice that you have provided no "proof" as to your contention so I will take it as the usual liberal emotional response that if something feels like it is true it must be true.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

You didn't supply "proof" either. Your citation was statistically irrelevant as it contained revisionist numbers for the Inquisition (chiefly failing to take into account the Americas) and the insane nonsense as counting Nazi Germany as a secularist occurrence when the Nazis were in fact waging a war with the supposed backing of God.

The point isn't that most/all WARS are created by religion. It's that there is more suffering/death due to religion by a variety of causes (health, retardation of science, etc.) than secularism. So much so, in fact, that estimates to their wide ranging effects are difficult to estimate. For a fair take on the history of destructive religion, however, I'll refer you to the collective works of Christopher Hitchens....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

It's that there is more suffering/death due to religion by a variety of causes (health, retardation of science, etc.) than secularism.

...citation needed.

Christians are about the only group in the world who regularly help others. Probably most of the charities in the US were/are Christian based. What does the sign say on the outside of most homeless shelters? Who sends missionaries all around the world, not just to convert, but to help those in need? The only kind of charity I see liberals sponsoring are animal based charities, save the puppies, save the whales, etc. They talk a big game about being for the little guy (well except the unborn little guy), but do nothing to actually help them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Not at all. Just stating a fact. Liberals talk a big game, but when it comes time to actually lend a helping hand, they face Washing DC and expect them to get out the checkbook. They could open their own checkbook but that rarely happens.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

John Doe, unlike you, the Christian (and a few Quakers) men that helped found this country tended to respect others' religious beliefs. The whole reason we initially came here on The Mayflower was because of the choice to chose their own path to God with the same guidelines of "Love thy Neighbor as Thy self".

They were fee-thinking men. Men of science, men of poetry, men of all trades.

So if you are saying that it was founded by Christian men with Christian core principles, maybe you should practice a bit of tolerance of all beliefs rather than your own..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about the founding fathers? Also, where have I been intolerant? I am only discussing the statements DH made about religion causing most of the worlds problems. If anything, DH has been intolerant with this attitude. I have not in anyway forced my beliefs on anyone (how can I in comments on a blog), nor been intolerant. Only debating statements. If you feel debate is intolerance, then how exactly do you express disagreement with somebody's statements? You obviously have no trouble disagreeing with me, are you intolerant?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

I assume you've heard the phrase correlation does not imply causation before? It would be hard not to have. It applies here. You can't just declare that because something was done 'in the name of religion' that it would not have been done otherwise.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

I am a Christian, and I am sorry that some others who called themselves Christians disrespected your space after you said no.

That being said, the issue to me isn't the porn. It is the simple suggestion of making PC manufacturers put in a porn filter on all new PC's that gets me.

My father was an educator for 33 (cancer of the appendix means early retirement) years before he retired. So I am well aware of what those filters consider as porn. We are talking medical diagrams and Anatomy and Physiology visuals, medical references.

It just goes to show that neither the GOP nor DNC really set out to do what they say to do. They just want votes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

"It just goes to show that neither the GOP nor DNC really set out to do what they say to do. They just want votes."

Frankly, it also goes to show how much more level-headed a religion's average "believer" is compared to the actual theology of the religion they ascribe to. I'm always puzzled as to how this isn't a red flag for the believer to drop that religion, but I commend their ability to compartmentalize nonetheless....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

"Frankly, it also goes to show how much more level-headed a religion's average "believer" is compared to the actual theology of the religion they ascribe to."

I highly respect and agree with your opinion there Dark Helmut.

I personally think that the statement you made is actually more true pertaining to those who take the bible literally. It also depends on who is indoctrinates you and what indoctrination you follow.

I myself am Protestant Nazarene and I grew up in a science-minded house. Therefore my beliefs center around the fact that we are guided to think for ourselves and to explore as much as we can about our universe.

The bible for me is no more than a guide book to a way of life. Intemperate how you will. I am under the firm belief that God put us here to figure out things on our own (hey we have a whole universe to explore ^_^ )and that includes actual scientific thinking. If anything my beliefs gives me something to center on when I need a bit of comfort or a reminder of how to act a certain way at a certain time.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

"I am under the firm belief that God put us here to figure out things on our own (hey we have a whole universe to explore ^_^ )and that includes actual scientific thinking."

I respect your right to believe that, even if I find the belief to be egotistical and xenocentric on a massive scale. Understanding our biology, how we came to be, how we almost came NOT to be, relieves me of the centric notion that all of what I see around me is about mankind....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

This confirms what I suspected about you. You seem to think that you can make Christianity into anything you want it to be. If you can't start with the bible as being the true, inspired word of God, then you can't really say anything about anything. Just broad, fuzzy concepts. You better go back and look at the book at lot harder or you will likely be in for a real surprise.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

So your intolerance for my beliefs lead you to defend your own. There are many denominations of Christianity. you forget John Doe, I am a Nazarene, in some ways I am more conservative than you, but the Nazarene doctrine allows for free-thinking. I am not going into which denomination is better, and don't call me out because you tried to establish your superiority over others who already respect us. That is the single LOWEST thing to do as a Christian and you should know better.

I am not making it out to be anything I want it to be.

"If you can't start with the bible as being the true, inspired word of God, then you can't really say anything about anything."

I see the words "If you can't start with the bible as being the true".....you literally aren't thinking for yourself if that's the case. God did give us a brain you know (ignoring creationism comments now because dinosaurs really existed).

John Doe...just out of curiosity....are you Baptist?
You don't think for yourself as God intended.
You force your beliefs on others regardless of them asking you to stop.
You deem it bad to think that the Bible is a guide book to the Christian life.
You annoy every other Christian Denomination known to man (and Kingdom Come).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

Christianitiy's 'actual theology' doesn't suggest that Christians should legislate the standards they hold themselves or each other to and legally apply them everyone. Arguably it says exactly the opposite of that.

Re: Morality

Re: Morality

Fap Fap Fap................It is the sound of the GOP Politician in Privacy Mode.

Present Day GOP = A return to the Dark Days of Church & State.They are playing a very dangerous game.they now will have to be stopped.I am Voting against them across the board even though I am not happy with the Democrats.

Didn't Avenue Q cover this?

so, we can have Internet Freedom as long as it is in the way certain politicians interpret it. it's the same as being told you can eat all you want once the cook has gone home and the restaurant has shut! and what's wrong with porn? if you dont want to look at it, dont. easy as that!

how the hell do these morons ever get voted into political positions in the first place? then to be in the running for President is mind boggling!

Re:

" how the hell do these morons ever get voted into political positions in the first place? then to be in the running for President is mind boggling! "

It happens because there are a frighteningly large number of people who WANT the US to be governed by the edicts of one particular 'magic book'. All a politician has to do is thump that magic book and all reason vanishes and votes appear because Jesus. It makes me want to vomit.

Re:

I don't know. LOTS of people will be upset about this, to be sure. But coming out loudly and publicly in favor of porn is something many will hesitate to do. They know this. It's basically the same tactic as the internet porn copyright trolls.

It's MUCH easier to publicly support generic things like "freedom" than specific things like porn. Of course, once the filter is in place, it's an easy step to start adding other "undesirable" things to it....

Re: Re:

"every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography."

Uh...how exactly will he expect to achieve this? Force Microsoft and Apple to pre-load the OS with porn filters (hint: they already come equipped with firewalls that can block)? Where does this leave Linux? Depending on what kind of Linux installation you make (or pay for) you might not even have a TCP stack (I can't think of a single reason to do this, but it is doable).

Or more concerning still: will this filter bypass the OS entirely, and be written in the firmware?

And what about liability? When (not if) the filter fails, who is responsible? I'm betting we will have a ton of lawsuits of angry mommies and daddies because their kiddo bypassed the pathetic filter and saw some boobs.

As usual, politicians have no clue about the implications and ramifications of their "ideas". They remind me of the PHB.

Re: Re: Re:

It's already been made. Both Windows 8 and Apple's Mountain Lion already have parental controls built in. I guess that 1 percent of desktop users using *nix, would be the only ones effected. They certainly wouldn't put this crapware on servers as I'm sure everyone in IT would revolt.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Whether it's made or not, do you really think the cost isn't bundled into the cost of the OS?

I'm curious about the Win8 one though (I'm a Linux user now). Do I have the option of completely removing it? Or is it an integral part of the OS like their DRM? In the past the first thing I have always done when buying a computer is reinstall Windows without all the bloatware crap they put on there.

Re:

Obviously, as an elected representative with the responsibility to make laws, what better way to understand the greatly-in-need-of-being-legislated moral degradations facing society than to experience them first hand?

What kind of representative would they be if they tried to outlaw giant boobs in your face without having first had said giant boobs in their face?

Re:

Out of context

I love how everyone can get all riled up out of an out-of-context / partial quote. Here's what Romney said:

"I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer," Romney said at a campaign stop in Iowa in 2007.

Yeah, yeah... The whole "for the children!" argument... Been there, have the t-shirt...

I'm not saying that this, in any way, excuses the government from wanting to mandate what software or features should be on my computer... But really, Romney never said he wanted to take away all porn. Sheesh.

Re: Out of context

"I love how everyone can get all riled up out of an out-of-context / partial quote. Here's what Romney said:

"I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer," Romney said at a campaign stop in Iowa in 2007."

So back in 2007 he argued in favor of making existing filtering software part of the free bundles you get with your computers.

The Huffington Post article quotes a proposed GOP plank item that says: "Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced."

I don't see what practical effects this would have on the average TechDirt user. Are there any existing federal laws against Internet porn?

But Romney said....

....that his admittedly extreme and unusual religious beliefs would not intrude on his political positions. He is not even the actual candidate yet but his party, which he must support, is already pushing for religious and moral sanctions that the majority of Americans do not want. Of course the rumorsmight be false. Perhaps Mr. Romney could release a statement to that effect, along with his tax returns.

Your vote counts - well not a whole lot...

Unfortunately, as long as the Electoral College elects The President and not the general election by the public it really doesn't matter who you vote for... most of the time the Electoral College does side with the November general election, but it does not HAVE to... There are Faithless Electors... Third parties really don't have much of a chance. It is time to revamp the election process... or at least educate the public that their vote only counts on the face of things.

Only 538 Electoral College voters votes count... I bet you're not one of them!

Actually, the filter on the computer itself would give the user the option to turn it on or off. A much better approach than trying to force ISPs to filter content. At least Romney does not take the regulatory approach that some do on the subject.

Re: Noooo :(

Porn is something that I would never pay for. I recently discovered most porn actresses have PTSD. I don't know if that's a preexisting condition or due to porn, but maybe something needs to be done. To fight porn as a business, they need to make it unprofitable for those producing it. Mandatory health insurance or counseling for all legally employed sex workers seems like a good way to start.

I don't see how taking down free porn makes pornography less profitable.

I wish it was possible to block all child porn and trace it back to the monsters producing it. Maybe when you don't have to deal with it or see it every day it's too easy to put up blinders to convince yourself it's not a huge problem.

Re: Re:

You can't vote for either party in this country. Republicans hate porn and the Democrats are in the pocket of the entertainment industry, so both parties have an agenda when it comes to censoring the internet.

Re: A wish

It's never been about smaller government

Many Republicans want just as much government as they accuse Democrats of implementing. They just want government to do different things. They want laws saying which religions are acceptable, what language you can speak, who you can marry, etc.

Re: It's never been about smaller government

Suzanne, would you agree with me if I said that both major parties at the presidential race level are fairly screwed up at this point?

I ask that you forgive me somewhat for asking. I am from Ohio and am pretty tired of getting political calls in the middle of dinner and seeing ads on TV with "He Said/She Said" arguments.

Both sides of the race use Ad's to get votes in the most egregious of manors.

WARNING THE NEXT BIT WILL MAKE ANY PERSON BLUSH:

Ladies of TechDirt please forgive me.

From a medical standpoint (my mother was a registered nurse for many years), contraception using pills was actually a side affect of a higher than needed hormonal-imbalance treatment for unnaturally heavy cycles. This usually means higher than normal estrogen levels even for a monthly cycle. I have a friend who had this problem specifically and as I am, I blatantly asked her about the insurance coverage. Her co-pay was US$30 for doses that would be considered contraceptive if it weren't for her condition.

A lot of you are wondering by now what my point is by now and I don't blame you either.

Suzanne Lainson, with all do respect I believe it is both sides that are muckraking and spreading FUD to get votes, rather than earning them in merit.

Re: Re: It's never been about smaller government

Suzanne, would you agree with me if I said that both major parties at the presidential race level are fairly screwed up at this point?

I plan to vote. I always vote. But I am quite disgusted with American politics at the national level right now (it's not so bad here in Boulder). I don't have a TV so I am spared many of the ads, but the media coverage is nearly as bad because they cover every nasty/stupid thing one politician says about the other.

My biggest complaint is lies. My second biggest complaint is that voters aren't likely to get the country they think they are voting for. The world is complex and there are no easy fixes.

The sniping gets pretty bad and that is only 1/100 of the scale of intensity of the negativity in Ohio state level political ads.

The thing is that on TV, you take the stuff you see written in a news paper, make that 10 fold. Being in Ohio i can assure you it gets extremely pervasive at a constant level.

Some of the lies I have heard, shockingly enough being spread by some of the ministers in my home town (not mine thank you Jesus). Obama is a Muslim name, we must not vote for him because of that. It only gets Mrs. Wally especially annoyed as well and as much as it does my self.

Why do "they", Governments MPAA, RIAA, think they can stop the unstoppable. How is that war on drugs going...People will find a way to get what they want. If "they" would work with with the thing "they" are against. Everbody wins. Everything in moderation. But greed gets in the way.
You would thing greed would be illegal. Money is very abusive, profane, think of the children.

Re:

Why do "they", Governments MPAA, RIAA, think they can stop the unstoppable. How is that war on drugs going.

There have been some interesting articles about the world's underground economy. Transactions that occur off the books because what is going on is either illegal or the right permits/taxes/bribes haven't been paid.

That's the irony of some laws. By making some things illegal, it opens the door to those willing to take those risks. The drug war is a great example. The people dealing in drugs make huge margins plus there is a huge industry to maintain those laws (e.g., prisons, border patrols).

When I get depressed about the direction of the US economy, I try to perk myself up by saying we're doing well for a Third World country. If enough safety nets collapse, we could see more people living day-to-day, squatting, scavenging, etc.

I saw this a few days ago.

Unilever sees 'return to poverty' in Europe - Telegraph: In Spain, the company sells Surf detergent in packages for as few as five washes, while in Greece, it now offers mashed potatoes and mayonnaise in small packages, and has created a low-cost brand for basic goods such as tea and olive oil.

"In Indonesia, we sell individual packs of shampoo 2 to 3 cents and still make decent money," said Mr Zijderveld. "We know how to do that, but in Europe we have forgotten in the years before the crisis."

Re:

How is that war on drugs going...

Why, very well, thank you. It's one of the few industries left in the country that still makes money. It supports many police departments, their equipment suppliers and the prison industry, not to mention thousands of pawnbrokers and the stores you use to replace the stuff stolen from you. And although we can't be told - national security, know what I mean - over the past 35 years or so it probably saved the taxpayers hundreds of billions in funding for CIA black operations.

Re: Re:

It's one of the few industries left in the country that still makes money. It supports many police departments, their equipment suppliers and the prison industry, not to mention thousands of pawnbrokers and the stores you use to replace the stuff stolen from you. And although we can't be told - national security, know what I mean - over the past 35 years or so it probably saved the taxpayers hundreds of billions in funding for CIA black operations.

Totally agree. Often conservative policies don't mean smaller government. What they really mean is this: "Let's support laws that enrich the companies we like." Hasn't that been what airport scanners have been about, too?

Government budgets have gone up during Republican presidencies. In fact, one of the ironies of the current campaign is that people who want to see more government money to boost the economy say the only hope is to elect Romney. If Obama wins, the Republicans block all of his proposals. If Romney wins, it's "Who cares about the deficit. Let's spend government money and get this economy going again."

Re: Re: Re:

I think you're right, it's just that this " If Romney wins, it's "Who cares about the deficit. Let's spend government money and get this economy going again," squarely applies to Romney.

Bush Jr. ran the White House like a bushiness firm and was extremely strict. If you were late to a meeting you got locked out. Most of his presidency paralleled with a DNC congress and Bush gets the blame for a bad economy.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Bush Jr. ran the White House like a bushiness firm and was extremely strict. If you were late to a meeting you got locked out. Most of his presidency paralleled with a DNC congress and Bush gets the blame for a bad economy.

He gets blamed because he got us into a war, but didn't raise taxes to pay for it.

Who even thought this was a good idea? Great you are getting the votes from a few wackos. Congrats, despite how many people sound off in support of this I can't see how the public at large is going into the voting booths and voting for the guy that isn't trying to put a stop to their porn!!!

Porn!

What is porn

As it's been said many times, who says what is porn? After all, you need a definition of porn to build a filter to block it. And how long will it take before every little county and city wants its say about what goes into the filter?

And then who's going to be responsible for the false positives when people can't go to medical sites because those sites have banned words? What happens when people can't go to the White House site because the words "first couple" triggered a filter (yes, this is a true story)?

An anti-science bias

Someone I follow on Twitter pointed this out. I didn't know a conservative version of Wikipedia existed or that this theory was a point of contention. I read this and was wondering when the anti-science folks might want to dispute the idea that diseases can be spread from not washing one's hands.

Re: An anti-science bias

LOL, Conservapedia. For those who don't know, this is not a wiki - it's a one man show by a New Jersey home-school teacher, Andrew Schlafly, and a handful of his former students. I thought it was a parody site at first, along the lines of Landover Baptist or Shelley the Republican.

To me, the most interesting thing about the site is that it equates "conservative" with "looney science-denying young-earth Christian fundamentalist". Well, who am I to argue with such an authority.

Agenda 21 is a 1992 United Nations resolution that encourages sustainable development globally. Although it is nonbinding and has no force of law in the United States, it has increasingly become a point of passionate concern to a circle of Republican activists who argue that the resolution is part of a United Nations plot to deny Americans their property rights."